sm_seasons

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the available modes and the downstream dependency, but it does not mention pagination, output format, or any read-only nature. Since 'Get' implies a read operation and the modes give a sense of behavior, it is minimally adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is two sentences: the first states the purpose and modes, the second explains the downstream need. Every word adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded. There is no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination via 'page', the role of 'include', the expected response structure, or how the different modes behave in detail. The description only covers the basic purpose and one dependency, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only lists mode values. It implicitly suggests that 'by_id' uses 'id', 'by_team' uses 'teamId', and 'search' uses 'searchQuery', but it does not explicitly define parameters like 'page', 'include', or 'id'. Most parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema property names, which is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Get football seasons', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also lists the four modes ('all', 'by_id', 'by_team', 'search'), adding precision and distinguishing it from sibling tools like sm_leagues or sm_standings by focusing specifically on the season entity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Season IDs are needed for standings, statistics, and topscorers' explicitly tells the agent when this tool is relevant—whenever season IDs are required for downstream endpoints. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.